Idaho Capitol climate hearing

Rocky Barker: The best thing about Idaho, really

A Boise steelhead angler's view on dams

Pioneer Fire recovery and rehab

Climate change doubles wildfires

For hundreds of thousands of years, wild ocean salmon have been coming to the Pacific Northwest. Now, their existence is under threat, along with the communities they support. Ali Rizvi and Sohail Al-Jamea McClatchy

For hundreds of thousands of years, wild ocean salmon have been coming to the Pacific Northwest. Now, their existence is under threat, along with the communities they support. Ali Rizvi and Sohail Al-Jamea McClatchy

In 1997, the only people who had taken a serious public stand on removing the dams were Reed Burkholder, a Boise piano teacher and renewable energy activist, and Frank Young, a biologist for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Statesman’s six-member editorial board — headed by Publisher Pam Meals and Editor John Costa — made a bold statement in an unprecedented three-day series of editorials, graphics and background beginning that July 20.

In his own separate column that ran with the series, Costa summed up the case. In short: A natural river saves salmon and money.

“We are aware that there are folks who passionately believe that the dams should stay,” he wrote. “But we do not believe that their case can be made against the broader interests of all in Idaho and the Northwest.”

Never miss a local story.

Sign up today for unlimited digital access to our website, apps, the digital newspaper and more.

Costa had asked me to research all of the issues surrounding the dams after the editorial board met with Mike Crapo, now a U.S. senator, then representing Idaho in the U.S. House. Crapo at that time supported lowering reservoir levels seasonally to improve salmon migration. But he worried a federal judge would order Idaho farmers to give up the water in reservoirs like Lucky Peak, American Falls and Palisades to aid migration.

He did not support dam breaching — but he got Costa and Editorial Page Editor Alan Bauer thinking. Could the Idaho Statesman make a conservative case that breaching those dams is the best decision for this state? Costa gave me a month to talk to people on all sides of the issue and lay out both sides’ best arguments.

I brought in executives from the Bonneville Power Administration (the federal agency that markets power from the dams) and Lewiston Port officials to talk directly to editorial writer Susan Whaley, now retired and living here in Boise. We talked to scientists from both sides of the debate, and to economists.

When I was done I wrote a long memo that laid out both sides’ arguments, the science, the history, the economics, everything but the politics.

On July 20, 1997, the Idaho Statesman launched a three-part series of editorials titled "Dollars, Sense & Salmon" that made the case for the removal of the four Snake River dams to help restore endangered wild salmon. Seen here is the cover. It was researched by Rocky Barker and written by Susan Whaley.

▪ Put a regional governance board composed of state, tribal and federal representatives in charge of river operations.

▪ Cut spending for salmon recovery efforts to offset the costs of breaching. Stop the harvest of wild salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River for five years — one salmon life cycle — to allow fish populations to build quickly.

It didn’t take long before the Portland Oregonian, the Lewiston Tribune and the Tri-City Herald all wrote editorials arguing the Statesman was wrong.

National stories called it the beginning of a river restoration movement, a tetonic shift from a national attitude that all dams are good and necessary. They often referred the the Statesman’s editorials.

“I have no question that the Idaho Statesman editorials had a major factor in now what has now become a nationwide movement,” former Interior Secretary and Arizona Gov. Bruce Babbitt said in an interview Wednesday. “They were on the front end.”

“The Statesman’s editorial series was ambitious and groundbreaking,” said Bob Irvin, president of American Rivers. “It stimulated a public dialogue about the costs and benefits of the Lower Snake River dams and dams nationwide.”

Some Lewiston shipping officials have blamed the editorials for adding to the uncertainty of their business, which has dropped by more than 70 percent since. Others continue to criticize the Statesman for not calling for removing Idaho Power’s Hells Canyon dams, which serve Boise.

I have written about the issue as a reporter and columnist since 1990, and what matters is not my opinion, but yours.

A lot has changed since 1997. The federal government decided not to breach the dams in a review completed in 2000; it instead spent $2 billion to improve fish passage through them.

Idaho and the Nez Perce tribe reached an agreement on water rights that allowed the federal government to send some of the state’s irrigation water downstream, as it is doing right now. That limited the impact on farmers and other water users, but helped young salmon survive the trip through the eight dams on the Snake and Columbia.

Two federal judges repeatedly ruled the dams remain a barrier to endangered salmon recovery. The government is once again doing an environmental review. Dam supporters in Congress are trying to stop it.

About Letters from the West

Rocky Barker is the energy and environment reporter for the Idaho Statesman and has been writing about the West since 1985. He is the author of several books, including "Scorched Earth How the Fires of Yellowstone Changed America," "The Flyfisher's Guide to Idaho" and "The Wingshooter's Guide to Idaho."